On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:59 AM Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 05:53, Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 01:49:52PM +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 1:27 PM Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 09:54:10PM -0600, Simon Glass wrote:
On Mon, 1 Apr 2019 at 14:01, Simon Goldschmidt simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com wrote:
If the malloc range passed to mem_malloc_init() is at the end of address range and 'start + size' overflows to 0, following allocations fail as mem_malloc_end is zero (which looks like uninitialized).
Fix this by subtracting 1 of 'start + size' overflows to zero.
Signed-off-by: Simon Goldschmidt simon.k.r.goldschmidt@gmail.com
Changes in v4: None Changes in v3: None
common/dlmalloc.c | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
Reviewed-by: Simon Glass sjg@chromium.org
So, the problem with this patch is that it increases the generic malloc code size ever so slightly and blows up smartweb :(
Ehrm, ok, so how do we proceed?
A good question. Take a look at spl/u-boot-spl.map on smartweb and see if, of the malloc functions it doesn't discard there's something that maybe could be optimized somewhere?
I wonder if we should have a Kconfig option like SPL_CHECKS which enables these sorts of minor checks, which may only fix one board at the cost of code size?
Then it could be enabled by default, but disabled on this board?
For a bigger change, this might be an idea, but for a change that I can cut down to 16 or even 8 bytes code size increasement, I don't think having a new option would be good.
Anyway, I just tried at work and I don't get the overflow. Tom, which gcc are you using to get the size error? It works for me on Debian 9 but doesn't work with Ubuntu (both times, default cross compiler toolchain installed).
Regards, Simon